DRAFT RESOLUTION AIMING FOR 'NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE WORLD' INTRODUCED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

27 October 1998

Press Release
GA/DIS/3121

DRAFT RESOLUTION AIMING FOR 'NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE WORLD' INTRODUCED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

19981027 Nuclear-Weapon States Say Text Fails to Recognize Disarmament Progress; Chemical Weapons, Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Among Six Other Texts Introduced

The General Assembly would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear weapons, according to one of seven draft resolutions introduced this afternoon in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The other texts introduced dealt with: the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; the nuclear-weapon-free status of Mongolia; the dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes; the United Nations Regional Centre For Peace And Disarmament in Africa; and the United Nations disarmament fellowship training and advisory services.

In introducing the draft entitled, "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda", the representative of Ireland said the proposal could have far reaching consequences for all States, including those that had not relinquished the nuclear option. The text charted an agenda that was contingent on the unequivocal commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to approach their responsibilities from a new perspective.

He said that the consequences of ignoring that urgent need was made clear this year by events that should act as "a wake up call" for the international community. Timetables could be set and new and alternative approaches explored, but very little could be done until the nuclear-weapon States demonstrated a commitment to the speedy elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Detailing objections to the draft text, the representative of the United Kingdom said that it failed to recognize the commitments made by the nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament and the practical steps taken by them, including his country's own strategic defence review.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

Moreover, the measures it advocated were inconsistent, at present, with the maintenance of a credible, minimum nuclear deterrent. In addition, the text had not condemned or even mentioned the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan.

Similarly, the representative of France said that the text was flawed for three reasons: its assessment of the status of the global reduction of nuclear arsenals was incorrect; the proposed agenda was unrealistic; and the presentation of the draft was not timely. It presented an entirely changed perspective on nuclear disarmament before completion of the agenda set by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The representative of Poland introduced the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The text concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was introduced by the representative of New Zealand. The representative of Mongolia introduced the text on his country's nuclear- free status and the representative of Nigeria introduced the draft resolutions concerning the African regional centre, the dumping of radioactive waste and disarmament fellowships.

Statements on the new agenda draft resolution were also made by the representatives of South Africa, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico and India.

The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 28 October, to continue the thematic discussion of all disarmament and security issues and the introduction of all related drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its thematic discussion and consideration of all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It is expected to hear the introduction of draft resolutions concerning: a nuclear-weapon-free world; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); Mongolia's nuclear-free status; dumping of radioactive waste; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa; and disarmament fellowships.

The current phase will extend through Monday, 2 November. It combines the thematic discussion with consideration of drafts, as part of a reform to streamline the Committee's work. The third and final stage of its work, which is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 3 November, will be action on all disarmament draft resolutions.

The Committee will have before it, as a preliminary proposal of the Chairman, an informal paper to guide the members' discussion on draft resolutions. The paper, which combines or "clusters" the various agenda items and draft resolutions into categories, was not intended as a formal structure of the discussion or introduction of drafts. Thus, any delegation could address any item or introduce any draft resolution at any time during the course of the second stage of the Committee's work.

The paper groups the agenda items according to the following themes or clusters: nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; the disarmament aspects of outer space; conventional weapons, including anti- personnel mines and small and light weapons; confidence-building and transparency measures; the disarmament machinery, including the Conference on Disarmament; other disarmament measures, including the role of science and technology in international security; related matters of disarmament and international security, including the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures; and other international security items, such as the development of good-neighbourly relations among Balkan States.

By the terms of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48), the Assembly would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and, without delay, conclude negotiations to that end, thereby fulfilling their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It would also call upon the United States and the Russian Federation to bring the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) into force without delay and to proceed thereafter with negotiations on START III, and to integrate all five nuclear-weapon States into the nuclear disarmament process.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

The Assembly would also call upon the nuclear-weapon States to vigorously pursue the reduction of reliance on non-strategic nuclear weapons and negotiations on their elimination as an integral part of their overall nuclear disarmament activities. It would call upon them, as an interim measure, to proceed to the de-alerting of their nuclear weapons and, in turn, to the removal of nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles. Those States would be urged to examine further interim measures, including undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would further call upon those three nuclear-weapon-capable States that had not yet acceded to the NPT to clearly and urgently reverse all nuclear weapons development or deployment and to refrain from any actions which could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community in that regard. The Assembly would call upon those States that had not yet done so to adhere unconditionally and without delay to the NPT and to conclude full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreements. It would also call upon all States to sign and ratify the CTBT.

By further terms, the Assembly would call upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament. It would also call on the Conference to pursue negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Pending the entry into force of such a treaty, it would urge all States to observe a moratorium on the production of that material.

It would further call for the conclusion of a legally-binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and stress that nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension such as the Middle East and South Asia, would contribute significantly to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ireland, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay and Venezuela.

A draft sponsored by Canada and Poland on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/53/L.38) would have the Assembly urge all States parties to meet their obligations under the Convention in a full and timely manner, and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its implementation activities. It would stress the vital importance of full and effective implementation of and compliance with all provisions of the Convention, and also stress the importance of the OPCW in verifying compliance

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

with the Convention, as well as promoting the timely and efficient accomplishment of its objectives.

The Assembly would further stress that all possessors of chemical weapons, chemical weapons production facilities or chemical weapons development facilities, including previously declared possessor States, should be among the States parties to the Convention.

A draft resolution sponsored by Australia, Mexico and New Zealand on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/53/L.11) would have the Assembly call upon all States that had not yet done so to adhere to the Treaty at the earliest possible date, thus contributing to its rapid entry into force and the early achievement of universal adherence. The Assembly would urge States to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear-weapon tests and to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

By the terms of a draft resolution sponsored by Mongolia on its nuclear- weapon-free status (document A/C.1/53/L.10), the Assembly would invite interested States to cooperate with Mongolia in consolidating and strengthening its independence, sovereignty, economic security and nuclear- weapon-free status. The Assembly would appeal to the member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements. In that context, it would request the Secretary-General and relevant United Nations bodies to provide the necessary assistance to Mongolia, within existing resources, to take those measures. It would also ask him to report on the implementation of the resolution at its fifty-fifth session.

Under another draft resolution, sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States, on the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/53/L.9), the Assembly would express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States. The Assembly would call upon all States to prevent any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States.

The Assembly would also request the Conference on Disarmament to take into account, in the negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons, radioactive wastes as part of the convention's scope. It would ask the Conference to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of such a convention and include in its report to the Assembly, at its fifty- fourth session, the progress made in those negotiations.

The Assembly would also express the hope that effective implementation of the IAEA Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

Radioactive Waste would enhance the protection of all States from the dumping of radioactive wastes on their territories.

By the terms of a text, sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States, on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/53/L.8), the Assembly would reaffirm the need to revitalize and strengthen the Centre. It would, therefore, appeal urgently to Member States, in particular to African States, and to international governmental organizations to contribute to the Centre. The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to provide the Centre with all necessary support, within existing resources, and to assist the Centre's new director in stabilizing its financial situation and revitalizing its activities. It would further request the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session on the implementation of the resolution.

According to a draft resolution on United Nations disarmament fellowship training and advisory services (document A/C.1/53/L.29), the Assembly would reaffirm its decision contained in the concluding document of the Twelfth Special Session of the General Assembly to continue the programme of disarmament fellowships. The Assembly would express its appreciation to Germany and Japan for inviting the 1997 and 1998 fellows to study selected activities in the field of disarmament, thereby contributing to the fulfilment of the overall objectives of the programme.

The Assembly would commend the Secretary-General for the diligence with which the programme had been carried out and request him to continue to implement annually the Geneva-based programme within existing resources and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its fifty-fifth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Africa.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

DARRACH MacFHIONNBHAIRR (Ireland), introduced the draft resolution on towards a nuclear-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48). He said the purpose of the draft was to revitalize the way in which the international community approached the nuclear disarmament agenda and galvanize common action for the eradication of nuclear weapons, once and for all. Enacting the proposals would have far-reaching consequences for the nuclear-weapon States, for those States that had not relinquished the nuclear option and for the international community, which had the responsibility to bring about a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The draft resolution proposed an agenda and did not presume to supplant other resolutions on nuclear disarmament before the Committee, he said. It offered a way forward, contingent on the demonstration of an unequivocal

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to approach their responsibilities with regard to nuclear disarmament from a new perspective, namely the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The draft called upon them to demonstrate such an undertaking.

He said the draft charted an agenda, which focused on the need to use existing mechanisms and approaches, providing in addition the "balance between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral approaches". Each of those approaches could and must contribute to the pursuit and achievement of nuclear disarmament. The effects of the approach outlined in the draft would be decisive, enabling nuclear weapons to be "rapidly relegated as anachronisms", which would ease the threat of proliferation. The consequences of ignoring the urgent need for the speedy and total elimination of nuclear weapons was made clear this year. Those events should act as a wake-up call for the international community.

Timetables could be set and new and alternative approaches explored, he said. Very little, however, could be done until the nuclear-weapon States had demonstrated a commitment to the speedy elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The draft resolution was an attempt by the sponsors to secure the final push towards the realization of the provisions of the NPT.

He said that some delegations had criticized the text, alleging that the sponsors of the draft were not prepared to consider changes. However, all the delegations associated with the draft had demonstrated flexibility by engaging all other delegations that were willing to work with them. They had invited the five nuclear-weapon States for a dialogue on the text.

As for another criticism -- that it implicitly rejected the agenda contained in the principles and objectives agreed to at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and tended to undermine the international non- proliferation regime -- he stressed that the purpose of the draft resolution was to reignite the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. The text was completely phrased in conformity with the principles and objectives of the NPT. The sponsors were, in fact, acting to protect the provisions of that Treaty and, if adopted, the agenda recommended by the draft would reinforce those provisions.

KRZYSZTOF PATUREJ (Poland) introduced the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/53/L.38) which his country and Canada had sponsored. The draft was the result of intensive consultations and was based on last year's text, which was adopted without a vote. There was an important difference, however. For the first time, the title of the text concerned implementation, rather than the status of, the Convention. For the first time the draft was devoted entirely to implementation, which was reflected in the operational portion.

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

As a result of recent consultations, he announced the following changes to the text: in operative paragraph 2, the word "all" should be deleted; in operative paragraph 7 the words "for the" in the second line should be replaced by "towards prompt conclusion" and the phrase "in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention" should be added to the end of the paragraph. The paragraph in its entirety should read:

"Welcomes the emerging cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and efforts towards prompt conclusion of a relationship agreement between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention."

CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand) introduced the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/53/L.11). He said that, just over two years ago, the CTBT was adopted by the General Assembly and opened for signature. Today, the Treaty had received 150 signatures and 21 ratifications. The five nuclear-weapon States were among the signatories and two of them, namely the United Kingdom and France, were among those countries which had ratified the Treaty. The CTBT Preparatory Committee and its technical secretariat were now well- established, and good progress was being made towards establishing a global verification system.

He said that despite the Treaty's broad support, the General Assembly had made no pronouncements on the status of its implementation. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution on the CTBT, therefore, believed it was appropriate for the First Committee to record its appreciation and to encourage its entry into force. The draft resolution was straightforward and had as its single practical focus the encouragement of further adherence to the Treaty in order to hasten its entry into force. The co-sponsors had hoped to attract the support of all Committee members. That would be the best contribution the Committee could make to the CTBT's entry into force -- and towards a permanent end to nuclear testing.

J. ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) introduced the draft resolution on his country's nuclear-free status (document A/C.1/53/L.10). He said the trend of establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones should be encouraged and his Government favoured the establishment of such zones in Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia. Many other regions and even individual States could also opt for nuclear-weapon-free status. For his country -- due to its geographical location and shared borders with two nuclear-weapon States -- that was its best option.

The danger of conflict was constantly hanging over his country, he said. For that reason, and due to its desire to contribute to the promotion of nuclear disarmament in the post-cold-war period, it declared its territory a nuclear-weapon-free zone in 1992. Thus far, his country was the only individual State requesting nuclear-weapon-free status and, thus, the standard

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

formula for the creation of such zones could not be applied. One of the notable reasons was that the nuclear-weapon States had some difficulty accepting the notion of single-State zones. He was certain, however, that nuclear-weapon-free status would strengthen his country's overall security.

MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN (Nigeria) introduced the draft resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/53/L.9), which had first been tabled at the thirty-third Assembly session in 1988. During that period, he said, many had doubted its relevance. Nevertheless, concern over the 1986 accident at Chernobyl had led to international cooperation in addressing nuclear safety, including the safe management of nuclear wastes.

In that connection, he said he welcomed the adoption in Vienna in 1997 of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. He appealed to all States to sign and ratify that Convention, so that it might enter into force as soon as possible. Also welcome was the entry into force of the IAEA convention on nuclear safety, which complemented existing instruments on the handling of radioactive wastes. The draft was the same as the ones submitted in previous years, which had always enjoyed consensus.

He also introduced the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/53/L.8). The Regional Centre, established in 1986, was charged with providing, upon request, substantive support for initiatives of Member States towards peace, arms limitation and regional disarmament, in cooperation with the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Despite severe financial constraints, the Centre had continued to discharge its mandate by providing wider cooperation among African States in the areas of peace, disarmament and security. It had been without a director since July 1992 and he would, therefore, reiterate his call for the appointment of an experienced director and for the provision of all necessary support in that regard. He hoped the draft would be adopted, as usual, by consensus.

On behalf of the co-sponsors, he also introduced the draft on the United Nations disarmament fellowship training and advisory services (document A/C.1/53/L.29), and announced that 1998 marked the programme twentieth anniversary. Its varied objectives had included training young diplomats with a general background in disarmament and security-related issues and helping them gain confidence in those areas, thereby availing them of the skills of negotiation, as well as of the procedures and practices of the disarmament bodies.

In its 20 years, the programme had trained some 500 officials, mostly from developing countries. Those individuals now held responsible positions. Thus, several developing countries had found the programme to be useful. That went a long way in proving its relevance to both the Members and agenda of the

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

United Nations. In light of that relevance, the draft appealed to Member States to provide the programme with the support it needed to fulfil its mandate. As it was similar to those of previous years, the draft should also enjoy consensus.

PETER GOOSEN (South Africa) said that the remarks made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and France recalled Shakespeare's line, "thou doth protest too much". The core element of the draft resolution was a call to nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate their unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear weapons. No matter how hard they tried, the language of the text had not in any way undermined or rejected their commitment under article VI of the NPT. Surely, the two representatives could not contest that article VI of the NPT was unfulfilled.

South Africa, at one stage, had possessed nuclear weapons, and it had destroyed them, he said. While those States that possessed such weapons might feel that the timing for their elimination was not quite right, the timing of the proposal contained in the draft resolution was the correct timing. He would ask the representative of the United Kingdom, where had the text ignored the commitments made by the nuclear-weapon States? Indeed, there were repeated references to those commitments. Perhaps the word "obligations" could be replaced by the word "commitments".

That representative had also suggested that the draft had ignored the practical steps and commitments made by the nuclear-weapon States. Yet, the second preambular paragraph dealt specifically with that issue and another preambular paragraph noted certain recent unilateral and other steps, including the strategic review undertaken by the United Kingdom. Furthermore, he did not see how the draft could undermine the NPT agenda. Indeed, his own delegation had originally proposed the principles and objectives to which the States parties eventually agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. Undermining them would have been totally unacceptable to his delegation.

The first element of the NPT agenda, namely the CTBT, had been concluded, he went on. The question of fissile material was also finally being addressed in the Conference on Disarmament. No further elements had been specifically identified in the 1995 review. Not only could the draft not be seen in any way as undermining that agenda, it had reinforced it.

Further, he said that South Africa and all of the other co-sponsors had strongly put forward their view on the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests and had specifically addressed in the draft the situation, not only of India and Pakistan, but also of Israel. The text calls on the three nuclear-weapon- capable States that had not yet acceded to the NPT to clearly and urgently reverse the pursuit of all nuclear weapons development and deployment and

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

refrain from any actions that would undermine international peace and security and nuclear non-proliferation.

Finally, he said, the text addressed the threat posed by those States parties to the NPT that were not in compliance with their obligations. Indeed, the thrust of the draft was to establish the need for a new agenda on nuclear disarmament, in which the possession of nuclear weapons by any States placed them outside international norms. The text was intended to put forward a vision of what would be required to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world. It was not intended to criticize or threaten, but to unite moderate countries around a realistic and moderate agenda.

Statements on Texts

R. TAUWHARE (United Kingdom), with regard to the draft resolution on a new agenda for nuclear disarmament, said it fell short of meeting his delegation's concerns and, as a result, he intended to vote against it.

First, he said that the text failed to recognize the repeated commitments made by the nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament and the practical steps taken by them towards that goal. The United Kingdom was wholly committed to nuclear disarmament and to its obligations under article VI of the NPT. It had made clear that once it was satisfied with progress towards that goal, it would ensure that its remaining nuclear weapons were included in multilateral negotiations.

He said, for example, that his country's strategic defence review had included significant reductions in and transparency about its nuclear deterrent. Overall, the United Kingdom would maintain fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads, compared to its previous ceiling of 300. It would also maintain a Trident submarine, which would carry only 48 warheads, compared to the previous 96. His country had also published defence stocks of fissile material and was taking steps to place under safeguards some 50 per cent of its unsafeguarded plutonium. It had ceased production of nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

Second, the draft implicitly rejected the agenda on the next steps towards nuclear disarmament, as agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. His country remained firmly committed to that agenda and feared that casting it aside would undermine the NPT regime. Progress towards nuclear disarmament could best be achieved by practical steps, particularly by those set out in the principles and objectives of the NPT. The first step in that regard, namely the conclusion of a CTBT, had been achieved. The next step identified by the NPT States parties had been the negotiation of a fissile material ban, which the Conference on Disarmament had finally agreed to undertake.

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

Third, he said his Government had concluded that the measures advocated in the draft would be inconsistent, at present, with the maintenance of a credible, minimum nuclear deterrent. Fourth, the draft had made no mention of, or condemned, the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. It was difficult to see how that failure could be reconciled with Security Council resolution 1172 (1998) on those tests. That failure would also undermine the NPT regime. Fifth, the draft failed to acknowledge the threat posed by States parties to the NPT that had not complied with their obligations under that Treaty.

He said his country was ready to support any measure that would make practical contributions towards advancing nuclear disarmament. The multilateral agenda and priorities were already clear. The draft, however, undermined that agenda and the NPT regime.

JOELLE BURGOIS (France), commenting on the draft on a new agenda for nuclear disarmament, said she perfectly understood the reasons behind the draft resolution, but it was flawed. There were three critical questions. First, were the statements in the draft concerning the shortcomings of the nuclear disarmament process well substantiated? Second, was the agenda proposed by the draft realistic? Third, was the presentation of the draft resolution timely? The answer to all three questions was "no".

The draft's assessment of the status of the global reduction of nuclear arsenals was incorrect, she said. The importance of the efforts of the United States and the Russian Federation could not be denied. The START process was a classic example. To doubt their intentions would place their bilateral disarmament forum in jeopardy.

Further, she identified with the comments of the representative of the United Kingdom. For its part, France in recent years had made significant efforts to reduce its nuclear weapons. For example, following a unilateral 1996 initiative, the maritime and air components of its nuclear arsenal were reduced to the lowest possible levels. Moreover, France did not have tactical nuclear weapons.

In addition, French nuclear weapons were not targeted against anything and the country had taken irreversible measures to demonstrate its commitment to strengthening the global non-proliferation regime, she said. Among others, it had closed its nuclear-test site in the South Pacific and its fissile material production sites. Her Government wanted the CTBT to come into force and strongly supported a fissile material cut-off treaty.

The draft resolution in question entirely changed the perspective on nuclear disarmament, at a time when the 1995 agenda set by the NPT had not yet been completed, she said. The draft mixed up all types of solutions and approaches and, thus, did not seem to be a practical approach that could be adopted. Furthermore, the year 2000 NPT review would be the best time to

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

review the status of nuclear disarmament and a new agenda could best be achieved through the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

RAIMUNDO GONZALEZ (Chile), commenting on the draft resolution on the new agenda for nuclear disarmament, said the representative of France had suggested that the draft undermined the idea of convening a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. That argument lacked logic, because it was not possible to undermine something that did not even exist. He agreed with the statement of South Africa with respect to the draft text.

He said his country had some difficulties signing and ratifying the NPT. Once it did, however, it became committed to the effectiveness of that Treaty. The draft resolution did nothing but strengthen the NPT and the allegation that it undermined the NPT was incredible. It was difficult to continue to accept a situation in which certain countries kept nuclear weapons, where others could not. That policy lacked legitimacy. As was affirmed by the ruling of the International Court of Justice, all States were obliged to enter into negotiations in good faith to ensure the elimination of nuclear weapons.

By the terms of the United Nations Charter, the preservation of international peace was closely attached to the maintenance of international security, he continued. The Charter rarely mentioned peace without security. In that connection, the international community was not being consistent with the provisions of the Charter, especially with regard to the Article forbidding the use of force or threat of the use of force. The possession of nuclear weapons by some States simply did not safeguard international security.

The world could not continue to accept a situation where nuclear weapons were awarded value, he said. He favoured the convening of an international conference to consider the ways and means of strengthening international security. The draft resolution was entirely in keeping with the realities of international relations today and lent momentum to the nuclear disarmament process.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that his country had encouraged the eight co-sponsors of the draft to promote a consensus on a reinvigorated process of nuclear disarmament at the bilateral, regional and international levels. That endeavour was worth undertaking under the current international circumstances. For its part, Pakistan would evaluate the draft from the perspective of its conformity with the consensus achieved by the international community at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, which had accorded the highest priority to nuclear disarmament.

As had been pointed out by the representatives of both South Africa and Chile, the NPT Review Conference had outlined a very brief agenda, which did

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

not reflect international consensus. Some countries, like his own, were not parties. Nevertheless, that agenda was virtually exhausted, except for its third point, specifically on nuclear disarmament measures. The present draft, as well as others to be presented on the subject, were aimed at trying to elaborate what the international community should do next to promote the goals of nuclear disarmament.

The co-sponsors of the draft had taken a few of his delegation's views "on board", but not many, he said. His remaining problems with the draft concerned several major omissions. First, there was no reference to the nuclear war-fighting doctrines -- espoused by certain nuclear-weapon States -- which had envisaged the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear-weapon States and in very uncertain circumstances. That arbitrary retention of those weapons posed the greatest danger in the world today.

Second, the draft did not contain any reference to the dangerous developments taking place in the militarization of outer space through anti- satellite weapons and the development and likely deployment of theatre missile defence systems, he said. Those developments were likely to destabilize relations between nuclear-weapon States, leading to a new spiral in the nuclear arms race, and should be urgently prohibited.

Third, no reference was made to the question of control over the large stocks of fissile materials presently possessed by a number of nuclear-weapon States, he said. Those stocks had reportedly fallen into the wrong hands and could be used for nuclear proliferation. The draft, even the paragraph dealing with fissile material, did not specifically mention the need to obtain control and international management of those large fissile material stockpiles.

Finally, the specific comments in the draft referring to "nuclear- weapon-capable States" was imprecise and it would be advisable for the success of the new agenda if greater clarity could be included regarding the expectations of States in the nuclear disarmament process. Further, while he would not pretend that the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan were irrelevant, those had already been addressed by the international community. Some nuclear-weapon States were using that issue to deflect the attention of the international community from the real problem in the nuclear arena -- namely the threat of the 25,000 nuclear weapons that remained on full alert in certain States.

NABIL ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), said the draft text on a new agenda introduced by the representative of Ireland was conceived in an attempt to overcome serious concerns following recent events in South Asia. Those tests demonstrated the need to unify international efforts in preventing the collapse of the non-proliferation regime and in achieving the vital objective of the speedy and total elimination of nuclear weapons. How could the non- nuclear-weapon States alone be asked to strengthen the NPT and the CTBT?

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

He acknowledged that there had been some efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to advance the course of global non-proliferation norms, a ready example of which was the START process. However, they were not doing enough to demonstrate their commitment to the NPT. The international community must ask the nuclear-weapon States to do more towards the object of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The draft resolution also dealt with the position of nuclear-weapon- capable States, in terms of strengthening the global non-proliferation norms and instruments. All steps were running parallel to international efforts to preserve the integrity of the NPT. The new agenda proposed by the draft was not directed against the NPT. On the contrary, it sought to strengthen both the NPT and the CTBT. It was also conceived to inspire a more meaningful and more fruitful discussion on the issue of concluding a fissile material cut-off treaty.

JOSE EDUARDO M. FELICIO (Brazil) said the harsh response of some delegations to the draft text on the new agenda defied logic and the opinion of the International Court of Justice, which stated that every State should pursue in good faith the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

For a long time, Brazil and other States that had been reluctant to accede to the NPT had been bombarded with demands to join that Treaty, he noted. The arrangement in the non-proliferation regime was that non-nuclear- weapon States would remain non-nuclear, while the nuclear-weapon States would vigorously pursue nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, the representatives of nuclear-weapon States had been expressing views that were increasingly against nuclear disarmament. The core of the global non-proliferation norm was that all States would commit themselves to the use of nuclear materials only for peaceful purposes. Brazil had been acting accordingly.

He agreed that the nuclear-weapon States had really made some efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Still, it was neither satisfactory nor fair that some States had to have their commitment to the non-proliferation instruments verified, while others did not. The nuclear-weapon States wanted their role and efforts to be accepted without the same verification to which non-nuclear weapon States were subjected. When the Brazilian Senate approved the country's accession to the NPT, it instructed that the country must also pursue the other side of the Treaty -- the elimination of nuclear weapons. For that reason, his delegation had co-sponsored the draft resolution.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said the representative of the United Kingdom had cited several shortcomings in the draft on a new agenda, which it had defined as omissions. His point that the text had advocated measures that would be inconsistent with minimum credible deterrence was, in fact, the sole genuine objection to the draft. How could omissions of past events be criticized in a draft that was forward-looking proposal for a new agenda?

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

The text was not a retrospective of efforts but a prospective one, he said. Nevertheless, the representative of the United Kingdom was probably right -- the draft was advocating measures inconsistent with the doctrines of deterrence. At least, he certainly hoped so, because such doctrines were not meaningful and had no rationale, despite the new efforts to justify them.

He said that at the other end of the spectrum, the representative of Pakistan also found three sins of omission in the draft, namely the absence of references to the militarization of outer space, to doctrines of deterrence, and to the stockpiles of fissile materials. He would point out that there had been some mistake in the English version of the text, namely the absence of numbers for the operative 21 paragraphs. If there were still omissions, the co-sponsors would take into consideration any additional elements that were reasonable and future oriented.

He said the representative of France had raised three questions, including whether the reference to the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament was justified. It was. Indeed, there had not been any advances in that regard. On the contrary, the disarmament community had witnessed the failure of the NPT Preparatory Committee, a lack of progress in the Disarmament Commission with respect to the convening of a fourth special session on disarmament. Further, START II, signed five years ago, still awaited ratification.

He said that concern about the rate of progress and the importance attached to disarmament was very rational, all the more so in light of the statements made today by nuclear Powers who spoke in extremely careful language about their nuclear disarmament commitment. At no time did they express their unequivocal commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world. That, however, remained his Government's position.

Failing such a commitment to the complete eradication of nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence theories would not change, nor would the role of those weapons in strategic defence planning, he said. The draft's co-sponsors did not believe that the new agenda was unrealistic. Rather, it was prospective and advocated realistic measures that should render the doctrines of deterrence obsolete.

To the question raised about whether the draft was timely, he said that the international non-proliferation regime was very much in question. It had experienced "structural cracks". Certainly, the initiative put forth in the draft had not provoked those cracks. Rather, it had attempted to strengthen the regime. The events of the past year had seriously called into question the obligations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and its universality. It was, therefore, urgent to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and the best way to do that was to design a new nuclear disarmament agenda.

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3121 16th Meeting (PM) 27 October 1998

Mr. GOOSEN (South Africa) noted that the representative of Pakistan, in considering the draft resolution introduced by Ireland, had referred to the need for a total international consensus on the issue. The sponsors sought such a consensus. The debate on nuclear disarmament featured two extremes. The proposals made by the draft were not intended as a new agenda, as such. Rather, they were meant to provide a middle ground, in order to reach an international consensus on how nuclear disarmament should be approached.

The representative of Pakistan mentioned the need for changes in the draft, he continued. He would encourage him in that regard. It was also notable that the sponsors of the draft had encouraged the five nuclear-weapon States to engage in a dialogue regarding their concerns and misgivings, relative to the contents of the draft.

SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said she understood that the draft had been the result of consultations with several delegations. Her country had not been involved in process except for two brief opportunities last week. The draft, therefore, did not reflect her views on several issues, specifically those paragraphs concerning the approach towards nuclear disarmament. Her delegation would present its views on the draft in greater detail at the appropriate stage of the Committee's deliberations.

* *** *